Two Wolves and a Sheep Voting on What to Have for Dinner.

How Democracy Is Nothing More Than Mob Rule

I’m a big fan of political TV series. Over the years I’ve been watching House of Cards (both the American and the original British series), Designated Survivor, the Danish show Borgen and the French one Marseille. Currently I’m wrapped-up in the Dutch series BuZa (Buitenlandse Zaken which is Dutch for Foreign Affairs). I love these shows but, although I understand they are dramatized fiction, over the years I’ve seriously begun to question the values of the democratic system. This unease is not only caused by those TV show, of course, but also by the aftermath of the failed term of America’s 45th President and the overall state of democracy around the world. And I don’t stand alone in this.

The argument all too often used in defence of democracy is that “it is the worst kind of government except for all the others,” as was allegedly said by Sir Winston Churchill; but then, he also said that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

It’s the latter quote with its reference to “the average voter” that haunts me. It is reminiscent of the 19tht century French philosopher and anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who wrote: “Democracy is nothing but the Tyranny of Majorities, the most abominable tyranny of all, for it is not based on the authority of a religion, not upon the nobility of a race, not on the merits of talents and of riches. It merely rests upon numbers and hides behind the name of the people.”

Proudhon’s mentioning of tyranny then brings us all the way back to Plato who, in The Republic, concludes that tyranny is the only form of government worse than democracy and that democracy will inevitably lead to tyranny. In the 2,500 years gone by since the idea of democracy was first introduced in Ancient Greece, humanity hasn’t been able to create a political sphere in which democratic ideals function adequately. Perhaps our starting point should be to look back and see what Plato’s issues with democratic rule are, and, from there, explore how we might fix them.

Why Democracy Makes Us Fat

Plato’s objections against democracy are twofold, political and social. In the first of his main political criticisms, he points out that in a democracy the focus of the leaders will be on popularity rather than genuine statesmanship. In order to get elected and hold the position, one needs to be popular with “the people” rather than competent as a leader. In an unavoidable catch-22, the eligible masses tend to vote indiscriminately for those with the highest popularity rating, without considering the actual skills needed to effectively govern.

In addition to this, Plato argues that democratic leaders, always concerned with pending elections, won’t keep their eyes on what is best for the state in the long run, but will instead have the “Breaking News” issues of the day and the irrational will of nameless masses dictate their political agenda. As a result, democratic states have an intrinsic predisposition to over-spend as it’s always better to give than to take when reelection is concerned.

Plato’s next objection is that in the democratic political arena, the debate — the backbone of democratic discourse — gets dumbed down and sensationalized in an effort to engage “the average Joe”. We see around us every day how complex issues become short-phrased media hypes nicely explained away in colourful infographics and politicians who are judged by journalists, not asking any real questions, but demanding simple, very simple, prefabricated answers.

This then leads to Plato’s final political objection, the distinction between “Appearance” and “Reality” in democratic society. This distinction between how things seem and how they really are touches on one of the major themes in Plato’s thinking. It is explained in detail in his famous Allegory of the Cave, but falls outside the scope of this essay. It suffices to say that as we live in a world where advertising agencies, spin-doctors, lobbyists, PR-consultants and many others continuously change the “Real” to what they want to seem real, Plato has a valid point. One of the more interesting examples he gives is that the people in a democratic society tend to eat poorly as they only focus on looks and taste (think about what you like) rather than nutritional value. In other words, democracy makes us fat!

The criticisms mentioned so far, perhaps with the exception of the last example, have been of a political nature, so let us now turn to Plato’s social concerns regarding democracy. Here his ideas are very straightforward. In a democracy the people and their leaders become increasingly selfish and unwilling to participate in broader society. As a result, democracies suffer from: social disorder, increased crime and a distrust of authority and government. I don’t think we need to stretch our imagination too far to see the awful truths Plato foresaw when he wrote The Republic over two millennia ago.

The Majority as Despots of the Minority

Proudhon and Plato aren’t alone in their criticisms of democracy. Another colossus of Western philosophy, Emanuel Kant, has written that, “democracy, in the proper sense of the word, is of necessity despotism.” What he means to say with this is that in a democratic society, the will of “the people” is actually nothing more than the will of the majority who, therefore, become the despots of the minority. This idea echoes in what Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the nation that considers itself most democratic of all had to say on the topic: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

So where does this leave us? Should we just give up on the idea of democratic rule and opt for totalitarianism? No! Of course that is not the path to take. An argument could be made that an Enlightened Dictatorship, in-line with Plato’s proposed Philosopher Kings, qualifies as the best form of government. However, as history has repeatedly shown us, enlightened dictators are hard to come by and without one a dictatorship of any kind really isn’t a good idea. Instead democratic rule should be revived by thoroughly rethinking the way modern democracies are organized.

Really, “democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”

[T]here you are.